How is it legal for a bank to charge a fee to cash a check?

[Warrior_of_Freedom]

I received a check from somebody for CHASE bank. I go to CHASE bank to cash the check. They tell me there's a 6 dollar service fee to cash the check. I argue with them (respectfully) then am told I have to open an account. How is this legal when the check is an order from the account holder to pay me the said amount? I see the JP Morgan family is continuing its legacy in ripping the American people off... Yes I have a bank account elsewhere, but I don't want the risk of a bounced/returned check. Looks like I have no choice though.

[muzzled dogg]

why would it be illegal?

[TheGrinch]

A company charging a fee for a non-customer to use their services. What an outrage!!

Further, you have a choice between paying them $6 to forego "the risk of a bounced/returned check" to your own bank account, or "the risk of a bounced/returned check" by using oyur own bank account.

Not saying I'm crazy about all the crazy fees banks charge, but there's nothing remotely illegal or dishonest about it, unlike much of their other activities.

[Acala]

Whoever wrote you the check owes you $6

[Warrior_of_Freedom]

Whoever wrote you the check owes you $6No they told me later I couldn't even cash it, because it has to clear. Shouldn't they know if the funds are available or not?

[Pericles]

If you don't like it, don't do business with them, oh wait, you don't. If only there was a free market alternative ......

[acptulsa]

why would it be illegal?

Because you live in a civilized state like Oklahoma, where the bank is required to cash that check without any more ado than checking the account for sufficient funds and requiring of you an endorsement, proof of identity and a thumbprint? Even so, Chase and other banks aren't too proud to move in here and do business. And they don't seem to go broke doing it.


A company charging a fee for a non-customer to use their services. What an outrage!!

It's a service to their customer. The customer contracted with the bank for a safe way to transfer their money to others when that customer set up a checking account. It doesn't matter what the bank thinks of you, if their customer wishes to pay you money then the bank gets to pay you that person's money.

Interesting how the free market originally dictates such behavior, then states pass laws requiring such behavior, then corporations get those laws repealed and somehow citizens don't get back around to requiring such behavior through the free market again. Just goes to show--most laws ultimately do more to harm civilization than to preserve it.

Well, at least we still have a free market in that we can choose which state to live in. For the moment. How long until the corporations bribe the fedgov into outlawing state laws?

[LibertyEagle]

I'm glad you said that, acptulsa, because that is what I remember from Oklahoma too. Banks never charged you money to cash a check from their own bank. Sounds pretty outrageous to me that one is doing otherwise.

[Warrior_of_Freedom]

The whole reason I want to check the cash at this bank is because the last time they wrote me a check it was returned, and no one can answer why. A second check went through fine, and they paid me back the return fee, but I'd rather not deal with this hassle. It's almost as if banks don't want to do business anymore. I remember a time banks paid you to bank with them. Now they give you 0.05% interest and try to charge you fees out the ass.

Hell, I can even cash the check at walmart for only $3.

[juleswin]

I received a check from somebody for CHASE bank. I go to CHASE bank to cash the check. They tell me there's a 6 dollar service fee to cash the check. I argue with them (respectfully) then am told I have to open an account. How is this legal when the check is an order from the account holder to pay me the said amount? I see the JP Morgan family is continuing its legacy in ripping the American people off... Yes I have a bank account elsewhere, but I don't want the risk of a bounced/returned check. Looks like I have no choice though.

Note to self, next time ask for cash :)

[Warrior_of_Freedom]

Note to self, next time ask for cash :)
I can't, it's from a company and I'm going through a few channels. It's unfortunate.

[TheGrinch]

No they told me later I couldn't even cash it, because it has to clear. Shouldn't they know if the funds are available or not?

This is undoubtedly the part that is ridiculous, when I can send a paypal or any other electronic order instantly. Frankly I cannot even fathom why it's in their interest to be such a pain in the ass.

The other part is ridiculous no doubt, but that has also given rise to no-fee banking options, so there is some competition for the time being anyway...

[Danan]

This is undoubtedly the part that is ridiculous, when I can send a paypal or any other electronic order instantly. Frankly I cannot even fathom why it's in their interest to be such a pain in the ass.

The other part is ridiculous no doubt, but that has also given rise to no-fee banking options, so there is some competition for the time being anyway...

There ridiculous regulations in regards to money transactions. Maybe it wouldn't be profitable to provide those services without the fees, especially to non-customers. I guess the Patriot Act, to name just one outrageous example, should apply too.

[idiom]

I haven't seen a cheque in nearly a decade. Was it denominated in Clams?

[torchbearer]

I received a check from somebody for CHASE bank. I go to CHASE bank to cash the check. They tell me there's a 6 dollar service fee to cash the check. I argue with them (respectfully) then am told I have to open an account. How is this legal when the check is an order from the account holder to pay me the said amount? I see the JP Morgan family is continuing its legacy in ripping the American people off... Yes I have a bank account elsewhere, but I don't want the risk of a bounced/returned check. Looks like I have no choice though. having worked for said bank, i can tell you, the sole purpose of the fee is to punish people for not opening an account with them. (are to push them into it)
If the account owner was there with the check, they'd cash it for him.
in fact, call the person who wrote you the check and say that you won't take any more checks from him if he is still at that same bank, or he has to pay you an extra six dollars for you to accept that check from him.
that way, he can then go to the bank and complain that no one will take his check because they charge fees to cash them.

[Carson]

The whole reason I want to check the cash at this bank is because the last time they wrote me a check it was returned, and no one can answer why. A second check went through fine, and they paid me back the return fee, but I'd rather not deal with this hassle. It's almost as if banks don't want to do business anymore. I remember a time banks paid you to bank with them. Now they give you 0.05% interest and try to charge you fees out the ass.

Hell, I can even cash the check at walmart for only $3.

Why would they want our business anymore? Banking is broken in both directions. They get their money for nothing and their checks for free??? or something like that.

Dire Straits - Money For Nothing music video (Good quality, all countries)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lAD6Obi7Cag

[phill4paul]

My policy: I take cash. If you must write a check there is a $10 service fee.

[idiom]

My policy: I take cash. If you must write a check there is a $10 service fee.

Is this the 1950's?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=agCOBrLYxGg

[emazur]

I cashed a check a BB&T a few months ago. They had a sign saying that for amounts over $50, there was a charge. I didn't see the sign until I got to the teller, but she said she'd waive the fee (check was $75)

[torchbearer]

I cashed a check a BB&T a few months ago. They had a sign saying that for amounts over $50, there was a charge. I didn't see the sign until I got to the teller, but she said she'd waive the fee (check was $75) that is what i did as a teller. just wave the fee.
and it really isn't waiving the fee, at chase, you had to go out of your way to add the fee by checking the box.
so, they are adding the fee, not really taking it off.

[torchbearer]

in other words, it really is up to the teller. to be a dick, or not be a dick.

[nobody's_hero]

The whole reason I want to check the cash at this bank is because the last time they wrote me a check it was returned, and no one can answer why. A second check went through fine, and they paid me back the return fee, but I'd rather not deal with this hassle. It's almost as if banks don't want to do business anymore. I remember a time banks paid you to bank with them. Now they give you 0.05% interest and try to charge you fees out the ass.

Hell, I can even cash the check at walmart for only $3.

They don't. Banks don't need your money anymore. They just go to the FED and get newly printed money, loan it out, charge interest, and then pay back the Fed (although the Fed doesn't really care if it ever gets paid back). Remember when banks had to offer decent interest rates on savings accounts to lure depositors, in order to raise the capital needed to make loans? Those days are dead. Banks don't want your business . . . unless your business is only being in debt to them.

Now, you and I, being mere slaves, don't have access to free (basically, given Fed rates) capital to loan out to other slaves and make profits like the banks do, of course. We couldn't have that, because then everyone would just ask for money from the Fed and keep it for themselves. Only the specially-priviledged companies like JP Morgan have that sort of access to the scheme.

EDIT: I didn't see Carson's post. He beat me to the point.

[Anti Federalist]

If you don't like it, don't do business with them, oh wait, you don't. If only there was a free market alternative ......

+rep

Oh...wait, indeed.

[cindy25]

A company charging a fee for a non-customer to use their services. What an outrage!!

Further, you have a choice between paying them $6 to forego "the risk of a bounced/returned check" to your own bank account, or "the risk of a bounced/returned check" by using oyur own bank account.

Not saying I'm crazy about all the crazy fees banks charge, but there's nothing remotely illegal or dishonest about it, unlike much of their other activities.

the check is a promise to pay, drawn on that bank, and should be cashed on demand without charge

if a bank wants to charge for cashing a treasury check, or a check not drawn on it they have that right.

but its on THEIR bank.

[DamianTV]

If you don't like it, don't do business with them, oh wait, you don't. If only there was a free market alternative ......

That sure is a great way to persuade non customers to become customers. Lets charge your happy ass for everything! But since youre so happy about it, were going to charge an additional Happy Penalty in addition to the current surcharges!

But maybe, just maybe, the person that wrote you that check will drop their bank like a bad habit!

[Anti Federalist]

But maybe, just maybe, the person that wrote you that check will drop their bank like a bad habit!

And do what?

Go to another bank?

LOLOLOLOL

[Anti Federalist]

The banksters have been very successful in convincing boobus to pay for everything electronically.

That way, they get their cut, off every coffee and donut, every bottled water, every candy bar sold.

I lose my mind every time I watch someone pull out a debit card to pay for $2.00 purchase.



Is this the 1950's?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=agCOBrLYxGg

[UWDude]

I'm glad you said that, acptulsa, because that is what I remember from Oklahoma too. Banks never charged you money to cash a check from their own bank. Sounds pretty outrageous to me that one is doing otherwise.

Me too. If the check is from their bank, hey should not be allowed to create any stumbling block to getting *your* money from *their* bank.

What if the check was only for $5? How convenient for chase, that they do not have to honor that amount, and get to hold the $5 forever.

[beaven]

The bank is a corporation. All corporations are non-natural persons created by the state. Thus they owe their existence to the state and are completely dependent on the state for continued existence. One is not anti-liberty by making laws limiting what corporations do. If you want freedom, aim for a society that has individuals, companies, groups, clubs, societies -- but not corporations. I'd take the bank to small claims court.

[thoughtomator]

I had this happen to me once at Bank of America. Since then my policy is not to accept any Bank of America checks. If a customer has a BoA account, they will need to find some other way to pay me or they don't get service.

As far as I'm concerned, a $6 fee to honor a check is the moral equivalent of not honoring the check.

[LibertyEagle]

And do what?

Go to another bank?

LOLOLOLOL

Not all banks are alike, AF. Not at all.

[torchbearer]

Not all banks are alike, AF. Not at all.

but if a check is drawn on Chase, another bank will not cash it unless you have the funds deposited in your account to cover it.

[Confederate]

If you think that's bad, I used to be charged $8 by my bank every time someone would send me money!

[idiom]

The banksters have been very successful in convincing boobus to pay for everything electronically.

That way, they get their cut, off every coffee and donut, every bottled water, every candy bar sold.

I lose my mind every time I watch someone pull out a debit card to pay for $2.00 purchase.

Dunno where they are getting there cut from here then. They don't get it from the retailer or the purchaser.

If the bank doesn't cover the fees everyone moves to a different bank. Free market in action.

For the banks, they get the money immediately, they don't have to deal with bad cheques, they can avoid the paying a cut to the credit/debit card companies, and they don't have to handle cash so they save a huge amount which covers the minimal marginal costs of a few kilobytes of electronic transaction.

[nankoweap]

...How is this legal when the check is an order from the account holder to pay me the said amount? ...Looks like I have no choice though.

correct. you don't have a choice. you have choices...

* don't do business with clients who use CHASE
* don't accept checks from CHASE - only money orders, cash, etc
* use your power as a consumer to influence other consumers to do the same. if you're effective here, CHASE will have to change its ways to remain profitable

last thing we need is another law forcing a private business to conduct business a certain way. laws like this only force businesses to find ways to charge fees. like a $6 check cashing fee written on one of their own checks.

[phill4paul]

Is this the 1950's?

Works for me. I've cut out the middle men, the banks and the government, two years running. I sleep better at night.

[nobody's_hero]

Not all banks are alike, AF. Not at all.

You're right. Some are massive government-supported banks and some are 'mom-and-pop' community banks that do actually try to offer decent rates on savings and set up rational lending standards.

But, how do you compete with a massive bailout-supported bank like Chase or Bank of America? You can't.

Even if everyone took their deposits out of Chase then they'll just run to 'ole Benny Boy and ask for more monopoly money, and you know good and well that people who need loans aren't going to go to community banks to get loans, with rates closer to what they should be (higher rates), when they can go borrow money from Wall Street insiders for pennies. There's so much fascism in play here, that to suggest that people can just simply switch to another bank and let the free market decide is, at best, a naive suggestion, or at worst, an exercise in cruel jokes.

My state of Georgia leads the nation in terms of bank "failures." Not a week goes by that you don't hear about the FDIC consolidating another local bank into a behemoth like Suntrust. We're told it's because these banks aren't fiscally sound but everyone knows it's got more to do with giving power to the big players. It's not like the big banks are in any better fiscal shape, yet they'll get $billions$ which they turn right around and use to gobble up smaller competitors.

[LibertyEagle]

One thing you do, nobody's hero, is to not keep your money at bailed out banks.

[malkusm]

last thing we need is another law forcing a private business to conduct business a certain way. laws like this only force businesses to find ways to charge fees. like a $6 check cashing fee written on one of their own checks.

Great first post! +rep

[talkingpointes]

Chase, BOA, Wells Fargo have always done this. The person writing you the check has a shady past, that's why it wouldn't clear immediately. Also checks over 1,500. will get held sometimes for up to two weeks.Note: I do a ton of construction work on the side.

[malkusm]

I am disappointed that within the last week we've had members clamoring for laws regulating the fees a bank can charge and laws regulating what an employer can/cannot set as a precondition for employment. If we think the government is a tool to use whenever things aren't how they "ought to be", we're no better than the politicos we're supposedly fighting.

[BAllen]

Well, there's a couple of ways to work around their stupid policies.
1. if the funds aren't immediately available when you deposit a check into your own checking account: Walk inside and cash the check without any deposit. Then drive around to the teller, and make a deposit.
2. if they won't cash a check drawn on their bank: open an account using that check, then go to another branch and write a check made to cash for that amount, and close the account.
I've done the first one. Don't know if the second will work, but it's worth a try.

[Seraphim]

Banks can charge for service. OBVIOUSLY.

Whether it's smart for them to do so is another thing.

Ask for cash next time.

If the banks want to fuck with you, fuck with them back. Don't deposit cash in that bank. Buy silver. Hold cash in a bank that you feel preserves your human dignity.

[heavenlyboy34]

You're right. Some are massive government-supported banks and some are 'mom-and-pop' community banks that do actually try to offer decent rates on savings and set up rational lending standards.

But, how do you compete with a massive bailout-supported bank like Chase or Bank of America? You can't.

Even if everyone took their deposits out of Chase then they'll just run to 'ole Benny Boy and ask for more monopoly money, and you know good and well that people who need loans aren't going to go to community banks to get loans, with rates closer to what they should be (higher rates), when they can go borrow money from Wall Street insiders for pennies. There's so much fascism in play here, that to suggest that people can just simply switch to another bank and let the free market decide is, at best, a naive suggestion, or at worst, an exercise in cruel jokes.

My state of Georgia leads the nation in terms of bank "failures." Not a week goes by that you don't hear about the FDIC consolidating another local bank into a behemoth like Suntrust. We're told it's because these banks aren't fiscally sound but everyone knows it's got more to do with giving power to the big players. It's not like the big banks are in any better fiscal shape, yet they'll get $billions$ which they turn right around and use to gobble up smaller competitors.
Credit unions FTW. :cool: Excellent service and benefits, as well local and non-profit.

[oyarde]

I haven't seen a cheque in nearly a decade. Was it denominated in Clams? I use them al the time , cash, checks for about everything . My local gas station does not accept checks , you can use debit or credit , but you get 4 cents off a gallon for cash.I use cash.I mail all of my bills and use checks . I pay $60 a yr for my checking account .It comes with free checks, safe deposit box, money orders , cashiers checks , no fee for using change counter etc.The primary credit card I use is , no interest, $50 annual fee .For $110 a yr total (30 cents a day) I avoid all other fees. Best deal I could find.

[gwax23]

I am disappointed that within the last week we've had members clamoring for laws regulating the fees a bank can charge and laws regulating what an employer can/cannot set as a precondition for employment. If we think the government is a tool to use whenever things aren't how they "ought to be", we're no better than the politicos we're supposedly fighting.

Well said. Plus rep.

The problem here is that while banks should be allowed to have this dumb fee if it was a true free market system they wouldnt get away with it. We dont have free banking or a real true market in the banking sector. Its all controlled by government when you look at the big picture. Through the fed and its monetary policies down to federal and state regulations/taxes/licensing/permits. It destroys competition and entry in the market and solidifies the control of the major wall street like chase and bank of america who can then get away with bad business practices that normally wouldnt be feasible.

The answer to this is not more government as shockingly some posters here have been suggesting but to correct the system of the whole with a high dose of good ole american freedom juice and then let everything self correct. Ending government currency monopoly, banking regulations, permits/licenses, etc etc. Then I doubt chase or any other bank would be able to maintain this policy for long after having to do with real free market competition.

Someone posted earlier that banks used to have to compete to get you to deposit money into high yielding savings accounts. That was a great point. Now your money is meaningless with the fed.

[Warrior_of_Freedom]

I am disappointed that within the last week we've had members clamoring for laws regulating the fees a bank can charge and laws regulating what an employer can/cannot set as a precondition for employment. If we think the government is a tool to use whenever things aren't how they "ought to be", we're no better than the politicos we're supposedly fighting.I am disappointed some people here think it's ok for a bank to hold hostage their obligation to pay by tacking on a fee.

[UWDude]

I am disappointed that within the last week we've had members clamoring for laws regulating the fees a bank can charge and laws regulating what an employer can/cannot set as a precondition for employment. If we think the government is a tool to use whenever things aren't how they "ought to be", we're no better than the politicos we're supposedly fighting.

A check from a bank means that is your money the bank is holding. The bank should be required to relinquish said money without trying to cause roadblocks to you getting your money. The bank should not be allowed to hold your money hostage.

A check is a legal document and contract.

[malkusm]

I am disappointed some people here think it's ok for a bank to hold hostage their obligation to pay by tacking on a fee.


A check from a bank means that is your money the bank is holding. The bank should be required to relinquish said money without trying to cause roadblocks to you getting your money.

So you're saying the government should mandate that they cannot charge a fee to cash checks drawn on accounts at their own institutions, which would do several things:

(1) Any law that is passed requires enforcement. We'd have to have some regulators to make sure that no evil banks were charging these fees! Paid for at taxpayer expense, of course.
(2) Banks complying with this could replace the revenue by crediting lower rates on money held in accounts, or by charging higher rates on loans. In this case, the cost is passed on to consumers as the equilibrium price of other banking services would increase.
(3) As an alternative to #2, banks could simply do without the revenue from these fees. But, by reducing profitability in the sector, this would act as an effective barrier to entry. If Chase is a national institution with full diversification of their investments, a 10% profit margin for them might be equivalent to a 12% profit margin for a local/regional institution because of the added risk. Taking these fees away might lower those numbers to 9.5% and 11.5% respectively. So now, any new banks that would have required between an 11.5%-12% profit margin under current conditions is a choice that would have been available to consumers without this law, but is now not available. Hurray for reducing competition!

[malkusm]

A check is a legal document and contract.

As is the agreement that the account holder signed when they opened the account, which purported to regulate the terms and conditions of any checks drawn on the account.

[UWDude]

So you're saying the government should mandate that they cannot charge a fee to cash checks drawn on accounts at their own institutions, which would do several things:

(1) Any law that is passed requires enforcement. We'd have to have some regulators to make sure that no evil banks were charging these fees! Paid for at taxpayer expense, of course.
(2) Banks complying with this could replace the revenue by crediting lower rates on money held in accounts, or by charging higher rates on loans. In this case, the cost is passed on to consumers as the equilibrium price of other banking services would increase.
(3) As an alternative to #2, banks could simply do without the revenue from these fees. But, by reducing profitability in the sector, this would act as an effective barrier to entry. If Chase is a national institution with full diversification of their investments, a 10% profit margin for them might be equivalent to a 12% profit margin for a local/regional institution because of the added risk. Taking these fees away might lower those numbers to 9.5% and 11.5% respectively. So now, any new banks that would have required between an 11.5%-12% profit margin under current conditions is a choice that would have been available to consumers without this law, but is now not available. Hurray for reducing competition!

Banks never charged fees for checks from their own institution in the 80's and even 90's.
And there were many more banks back then.
So please don't tell me this will "kill competition".
Please stop acting like this is a time honored tradition.


As is the agreement that the account holder signed when they opened the account, which purported to regulate the terms and conditions of any checks drawn on the account.

Uh huh. And what about people that opened accounts before the $6 charge?

And I suppose you believe that a EULA allows people to install spyware onto your computer too?

[malkusm]

Banks never charged fees for checks from their own institution in the 80's and even 90's.
And there were many more banks back then.
So please don't tell me this will "kill competition".
Please stop acting like this is a time honored tradition.

Who says it was? Are you aware of how much additional legislation banks have had to endure since the 80's and 90's? Everything from the implementation of the Basel Accords to compliance with "anti-terrorism" legislation and "price gouging" legislation. And yet, your solution is to add more legislation, more red tape for banks to comply with. This attitude DOES reduce competition as it very clearly HAS in the past 20 years:

http://www.motherjones.com/files/images/big-bank-theory-chart-large.jpg


Uh huh. And what about people that opened accounts before the $6 charge?

They were required to receive updated terms and conditions via mail. If they didn't, they have grounds for a lawsuit. If they kept their account, whether because they failed to read the updated terms and conditions or otherwise, that's their own damn fault.


And I suppose you believe that a EULA allows people to install spyware onto your computer too?

If you're stupid enough to sign a EULA that says that, yes.

[UWDude]

DP

...............

[UWDude]

Who says it was? Are you aware of how much additional legislation banks have had to endure since the 80's and 90's? Everything from the implementation of the Basel Accords to compliance with "anti-terrorism" legislation and "price gouging" legislation. And yet, your solution is to add more legislation, more red tape for banks to comply with. This attitude DOES reduce competition as it very clearly HAS in the past 20 years:

More red tape? LoL. Give me a break. That's so ridiculous. LoL
"Let's start charging people $6 to access their own money"
"Big bad government says we can't"
"Damn these stifling regulations! Oh, now Our workers will be drowned in paperwork not implementing something that we never implemented before anyways! Oh, how can I survive in this anti-business environment! All the paperwork we must now write up and file to not implement something we never did before!"

Just think about all the paperwork the banks must be drowning in because they never implemented hats with propellers on the top for their employees, never implemented fees for using their ashtrays, never implemented fees for drinking their coffee and cookies, never implemented a fee for sitting in one of their chairs...

The red tape! The red tape!
LOL


And I love how you used the fact that banks are merging as proof that the introduction of $6 charges somehow stymied competition.

$6 charges introduced, number of banking companies reduced... ..Malkusm says it is because banks can't charge $6 like they want to. Wait... what?

Oh yeah. Total runaround nonsense.
Seriously, did you think you could just vomit up a couple paragraphs full of irrelevant free-market buzzwords, and suddenly come up with any kind of coherent argument about the topic being discussed?



They were required to receive updated terms and conditions via mail. If they didn't, they have grounds for a lawsuit. If they kept their account, whether because they failed to read the updated terms and conditions or otherwise, that's their own damn fault.

And what about the third party in this deal, the check holder. Why must he pay to get his own money from a bank?


If you're stupid enough to sign a EULA that says that, yes.

When is the last time you read a EULA?

[acptulsa]

There ridiculous regulations in regards to money transactions. Maybe it wouldn't be profitable to provide those services without the fees, especially to non-customers. I guess the Patriot Act, to name just one outrageous example, should apply too.

Allow me to reiterate. Oklahoma has had said law prohibiting this behavior for decades and decades. Yet just as soon as the federal branch banking laws were changed, Chase, BoA and others spent billions buying out local banks so they could get themselves into this market. Now, explain to me how it could be that corporations this big and sophisticated could possibly spend billions to get themselves into an unprofitable market.

If we go back far enough and study up on the issue, we'd find that laws like this made checking into the institution it is today. There was a time when most retailers didn't have anything to do with checks (cheques at the time) at all. The banks were actually happy about these laws because it prevented certain banks from doing things that were keeping checking from becoming widespread. Some banks pushed these laws upon us, just as vigorously as they pushed to repeal them once the institution had become institutionalized. The same goes for laws making it a crime to write a bad check.

Now, I'm not saying that I favor legal remedies to this stuff. I will fight to the death for my state's right to pass such laws, if that's what a preponderance of the citizens thereof want. I'd much rather see states able to do it than see the fedgov dictate all terms. That doesn't mean I'd not prefer a market solution without government involved at all. But the fact remains that laws like this were part and parcel of the rise of checking in the first place. If laws like this are required to make the thing commonplace, then how does it serve the best interests of the public to pass the laws, make the practice an everyday thing, then change the rules on people?

We can't understand how it is that we have trouble getting people to trust us, then we make it sound like we're ready to repeal any law that doesn't fit our principles without any regard to the practical effects these actions cause. No offense to those who are shocked to their drawers that a libertarian could even mention such laws in a positive light, but such reactions are reactionary. We want people of our enlightened sensibilities in positions of power. But if we're to be entrusted with positions of power, we had better exhibit some sense.

The house is built on a foundation of sand, and that's no good. Fair enough. But the house hasn't fallen down yet. You don't save the house by yanking that sand out from under it all in one fell swoop. You've got to excavate some sand, and put in some cinderblocks, before you move on to excavating the next batch of sand. And doing it right sometimes means you have to look at the sand and see how it really is supporting the house right now, whether it has any theoretical right to support it or not.

[malkusm]

More red tape? LoL. Give me a break. And I love how you used the fact that banks are merging as proof that the introduction of $6 charges somehow stymied competition.

$6 charges introduced, number of banking companies reduced... ..Malkusm says it is because banks can't charge $6 like they want to. Wait... what?

Oh yeah. Total runaround nonsense.

Obviously I'm not saying that this one measure would have a big impact, but it's the principle. If we're going to say "Banks shouldn't be able to do X because I disagree with it! We should pass a law to regulate it!" ....well, then you end up with the banking system we have in place today, which is probably the most regulated sector in the U.S. economy.

I'm not saying I agree with the premise of a $6 check-cashing fee at the institution who issued the check. I'm saying the government shouldn't have anything to do with it, because you end up promoting one measure, and that one measure gives license to government to regulate commerce in myriad other ways.


And what about the third party in this deal, the check holder. Why must he pay to get his own money from a bank? Why does his contract become voided because the other two parties made an agreement?

For the same reason a sub-lease contract would be voided if the original lease expressly prohibited sub-leasing. If you sign a contract saying "I agree to X," then you have no right to gripe about X if it becomes inconvenient for you at some future time. You do, however, have the right to cancel your account or to handle your obligations in other ways (i.e. pay cash instead of writing a check).


When is the last time you read a EULA?

What does that have to do with the personal responsibility of the end user? You're basically implying that we should regulate the economy on behalf of the stupid or ignorant who were not responsible enough to figure out if they actually wanted to agree to it.

[LibertyRevolution]

BOA charges money to cash a check on their own bank too..
My payroll check cost my $6 a week to cash...
When the teller asks me to open an account, I respond with:
"Why would I open an account here when your going to charge people I write checks to $6 to cash them?

P.S. Thumbprint required also...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WJQZX3zb57o

[malkusm]

Now, I'm not saying that I favor legal remedies to this stuff. I will fight to the death for my state's right to pass such laws, if that's what a preponderance of the citizens thereof want. I'd much rather see states able to do it than see the fedgov dictate all terms. That doesn't mean I'd not prefer a market solution without government involved at all.

I am pretty much in agreement to this. One specific case I outlined is the case of a monopoly. If for some reason, Chase has a monopoly in a jurisdiction which is insurmountable, then I think it's legitimate for that jurisdiction to outline some rules for them.

Usually, though, fees like this are not persistent throughout an entire market. Many companies have thrived on promoting themselves doing business at lower cost and reducing/removing fees altogether. For example, PNC touts their no-fee ATMs and Southwest Airlines advertises the fact that they have no baggage check fees. Amazingly, it didn't even take a law for them to provide these benefits. I love the free market.

[acptulsa]

Yes, credit/debit card companies charge the recipient of payments the fees. Yes, said recipients choose to deal with that in order to attract customers who like the convenience of the cards. Yes, some gig their cash customers by charging them the same prices, and some don't. Yes, this is the market at work. Yes, check customers could be treated the same way. No, that wouldn't be fair to those bank/credit union customers who go to the trouble to find an institution that does not charge the payee anything for the honor of receiving what you owe them. Yes, being fair about it would involve doing research into what banks/credit unions do charge and which ones don't.

And I say yes, the people of a community (not the whole nation, but perhaps states like mine) have the right to say, one law will make it possible for all our businesses to do more productive things with their time and effort, and still be fair. So, we want that law.


Usually, though, fees like this are not persistent throughout an entire market. Many companies have thrived on promoting themselves doing business at lower cost and reducing/removing fees altogether. For example, PNC touts their no-fee ATMs and Southwest Airlines advertises the fact that they have no baggage check fees. Amazingly, it didn't even take a law for them to provide these benefits. I love the free market.

I agree. But if said bank eliminates said charges on its customers, then makes up the difference by charging the payees, is there a victim or no? Does the payee get notification of the change of policy, or only the customer? Is the customer obligated to inform the person they're paying of the change?

Calvinball is funny because who would want to play Calvinball? Did we enjoy it when the Republicans played Calvinball with us? Is it too much to expect that the games which make civilization tick have rules that don't change at random and without warning?

[UWDude]

Obviously I'm not saying that this one measure would have a big impact, but it's the principle. If we're going to say "Banks shouldn't be able to do X because I disagree with it! We should pass a law to regulate it!" ....well, then you end up with the banking system we have in place today, which is probably the most regulated sector in the U.S. economy.

Whatever dude. That's a huge logical leap, and you know it. And no, banks should not be allowed to hold your money hostage. PERIOD. IT IS YOUR MONEY BY CONTRACT, NOT THE BANK'S.


I'm not saying I agree with the premise of a $6 check-cashing fee at the institution who issued the check. I'm saying the government shouldn't have anything to do with it, because you end up promoting one measure, and that one measure gives license to government to regulate commerce in myriad other ways.

Oh boy. The old slippery slope. "if we don't allow banks to hold your money hostage, then... then..."
Wait, what horrible things will happen again? I hear horrible things will happen, I am just curious exactly what horrible things will happen. Please be specific.



For the same reason a sub-lease contract would be voided if the original lease expressly prohibited sub-leasing. If you sign a contract saying "I agree to X," then you have no right to bitch about X if it becomes inconvenient for you at some future time. You do, however, have the right to cancel your account or to handle your obligations in other ways (i.e. pay cash instead of writing a check).

Nope. A bank should not participate in the checking system if it is not willing to give money to people that is legally theirs. That's part of what using the checking system entails.






What does that have to do with the personal responsibility of the end user? You're basically implying that we should regulate the economy on behalf of the stupid or ignorant who were not responsible enough to figure out if they actually wanted to agree to it.

LoL

So, when is the last time you read a EULA? Now everyone has to be or hire a lawyer to open a bank account or install software on their computer? What a free-market paradise you have proposed! I just don't understand why everybody is too stupid to see that your free-market paradise is good and right for them!

(Of course, you never took the time to read a EULA, but other people who don't, by your own words, are "stupid")

[malkusm]

Whatever dude. That's a huge logical leap, and you know it. And no, banks should not be allowed to hold your money hostage. PERIOD. IT IS YOUR MONEY BY CONTRACT, NOT THE BANK'S.

Then why give the bank your money? I suppose you're also in favor of deposit insurance, to guarantee that any money you put into the bank will come back out - after all, it's your money. Damn all the unintended consequences, such as banks becoming less risk-averse because they know a governmental institution will bail them out! It's all for consumer protection, of course....


Oh boy. The old slippery slope. "if we don't allow banks to hold your money hostage, then... then..."
Wait, what horrible things will happen again? I hear horrible things will happne, I am just curious exactly what horrible things will happen.

You've done a fantastic job of coining a scary sounding term ("holding your money hostage") in attempt to persuade people that a law must be passed. You'd be good in Congress!


So, when is the last time you read a EULA? Now everyone has to be or hire a lawyer to open a bank account or install software on their computer? What a free-market paradise you have proposed! I just don't understand why everybody is too stupid to see that your free-market paradise is good and right for them!

(Of course, you never took the time to read a EULA, but other people who don't, by your own words, are "stupid")

I'm not the one trying to pass off responsibility for an agreement I didn't read onto other people. If I choose not to read a EULA, I do so with full acknowledgment that there is a risk involved. Kind of like if people have sex without contraception, they should accept responsibility for any financial obligations that arise from that decision, and not require taxpayers to subsidize the child or the birth control necessary to prevent one.

[UWDude]

Then why give the bank your money?

Uhh... you didn't. the person who gave you the monetary transferrance mechanism known as a "check" did.
No wonder you are flying into outer space with your arguments. You probably never even read the original post, did you?

Much less a EULA.

LOL!!!


"OPE! I see the word "legal"! Time to jump in and blunderbuss a bunch of free-market cliches and jingos without even understanding the issue at hand! herr derr!"

[malkusm]

Uhh... you didn't. the person who gave you the monetary transferrance mechanism known as a "check" did.
No wonder you are flying into outer space with your arguments. You probably never even read the original post, did you?

Much less a EULA.

LOL!!!

Your use of "LOL" is quite engaging, but let me rephrase it then: Why accept payment for something via check from an institution with such a fee?

[UWDude]

Your use of "LOL" is quite engaging, but let me rephrase it then: Why accept payment for something via check from an institution with such a fee?

So now every time you accept a check, in free-market paradise land, you have to check first to see whether they charge a fee, and secondly, you have to make sure the policy has not changed. And this is somehow supposed to foster competition amongst banks? Get with reality.

AND IF YOU HAD READ THE THREAD BEFORE POSTING.
(you ever going to do that? Or you going to keep wasting my time?)
You would see in this case, like in so many cases, this check came through channels the OP had no control of.
Many times companies cut checks from their bank for things like refunds. (I should know, I live in this paradise, and I constantly get refunds from telephone and utility companies for sneaking in hidden fees).

Of course, in your freemarketopia, these companies cutting these checks should be allowed to choose which banks they want to use. So Comcast overcharges me $20. I go on hold for 20 minutes and deal with customer service for another hour, before they agree to give me my money back. But because I closed my account, they have to send a check.

Check arrives, and they are using Bank of Freemarketopia. I go to said bank, and lo and behold, they charge $15 to cash a check for non-customers.

Now, what options do I have left?
Call Comcast and demand cash? (yay, another three hours on the phone over $20 that they stole!)
Tell Comcast, I will not accept a check from Freemarketopia bank, and demand another check from a different bank.

Oh, or maybe I'll save you a libertarian cliche, and HIRE A LAWYER over TWENTY FUCKING DOLLARS. Jesus Christ! Some of you people must live in a fairy tale land!


Another scenario? OK.
You sell a car.
You need the money to take advantage of an opportunity that will close soon.
The man gives you a check from Bank of Freemarketopia.
You go to Bank of Fremarketopia, and they inform you that unless you open an account with them, they will be "forced" to charge 10%, so your $4000 check for a used car will cost $400 to cash.

According to freemarketopians like you, the person recieving the check should have first verified there were no hidden fees before cashing it.

Guess what? SCREW THAT.
How about we just be sensible and say, ALL BANKS SHOULD HONOR THEIR CHECKS WITHOUT FEES.
What is so wrong with that?
If a bank issues it's customers blank checks, it should be prepared to deliver to anybody who walks in with one of those promises of payments, without trying to take a little of the money just because they can in the wild west of financial transactions.

[phill4paul]

How about we just be sensible and say, ALL BANKS SHOULD HONOR THEIR CHECKS WITHOUT FEES.


Why cut in the middle men? It would be much easier if the government just took over the banking industry. Then we could use any banking office, wouldn't have to worry about due diligence with regard to individual banking rules and live in a governmenttopia. amiright?

[phill4paul]

DP

[UWDude]

Why cut in the middle men? It would be much easier if the government just took over the banking industry. Then we could use any banking office, wouldn't have to worry about due diligence with regard to individual banking rules and live in a governmenttopia. amiright?

Slippery slope again? Yeah dude, forcing banks to honor their own checks without fees would lead to government nationalization of the banks.
Uh huh.
Get a grip, please.
Can we come back to the real world now?

I don't want to live in your freemarketopia, if it means banks can hold my money hostage. If that is your definition of freedom, I'd rather just have my "bondage", thanks.

[malkusm]

There's no reason to get angry or direct personal attacks at people who disagree with you. I disagree that it's a legitimate function of government to regulate commerce in this way. You don't need to exaggerate examples and raise the check-cashing fee to $15 or 10% of the total to illustrate your point (or maybe you feel that you do).

If you're not happy with the fee, there are alternatives. You could join a credit union. You could request payment by money order. I fully acknowledge that the alternatives may not be good, but there are alternatives.

By the way, did you know that if the check is over $200, the bank is required under federal law to conduct a counter-terrorism check? Maybe part of this check-cashing fee is meant to offset this cost? Maybe we should be solving this problem using less government intervention rather than more?

[phill4paul]

Slippery slope again? Yeah dude, forcing banks to honor their own checks without fees would lead to government nationalization of the banks.
Uh huh.
Get a grip, please.
Can we come back to the real world now?

I don't want to live in your freemarketopia, if it means banks can hold my money hostage. If that is your definition of freedom, I'd rather just have my "bondage", thanks.

Typical liberal. I don't wanna...so we need a new law to govern YOU. I see someone over there get's weekends off, 8 hour work days and a wage higher than mine. We need MORE laws! pfft.

[UWDude]

You don't need to exaggerate examples and raise the check-cashing fee to $15 or 10% of the total to illustrate your point (or maybe you feel that you do).

Oh, *now* you want to get back to the specifics of this case? I was exaggerating? Me! LoL! You were the one talking about how this would lead to massive red tape and the end of competitive banking as we know it?

And why not? Banks should be allowed to charge whatever they want to honor their own checks, right? So why not $15 or 10%?


If you're not happy with the fee, there are alternatives. You could join a credit union. You could request payment by money order. I fully acknowledge that the alternatives may not be good, but there are alternatives.

Do you understand why I personally attack you yet? DID YOU JUST NOT READ THE MY COMCAST SCENARIO? That is why I don't like you. You aren't even reading anything I write, or what the OP wrote, you are just blabbing out over and over again your cliches.

Done with you on this. Let me know when you learn to read what other people write before repeating your own arguments.

[UWDude]

Typical liberal. I don't wanna...so we need a new law to govern YOU. I see someone over there get's weekends off, 8 hour work days and a wage higher than mine. We need MORE laws! pfft.

Yeap. Sure. My money. You guys want to tell me I hate freedom if I don't think they should be able to charge me to get my money. If that's your utopia, count me out. Let's go see what the socialists are selling, because these libertarians are NUTS!

[phill4paul]

Yeap. Sure. My money. You guys want to tell me I hate freedom if I don't think they should be able to charge me to get my money. If that's your utopia, count me out. Let's go see what the socialists are selling, because these libertarians are NUTS!

Then count yourself out. Please.

[UWDude]

Then count yourself out. Please.

I already did. I am not supporting your pseudo-free-market-solution jibber jabber and philosophical "how-it-should-bes" on a real world injustice like this. Luckily, I am not alone on this, even on these boards. So good luck with your pie-in-the-sky dreaming about everybody joining invisible hands and eventually solving real world problems through good intentions and boycott.

LoL

[phill4paul]

I already did. I am not supporting your pseudo-free-market-solution jibber jabber and philosophical "how-it-should-bes" on a real world injustice like this. Luckily, I am not alone on this, even on these boards. So good luck with your pie-in-the-sky dreaming about everybody joining invisible hands and eventually solving real world problems through good intentions and boycott.

LoL

Typical liberal. Can't shut the fuck up even when they huff out of a room.

[acptulsa]

This is an interesting impasse. Let's try this. Does anyone think it would be out of line for a law to be passed that states that anyone providing a refund to a customer be required to make payment in full, and cover all fees on their checks? That would cover the cable refund scenario mentioned earlier, which no one has addressed. This would make it unnecessary for people to find out which bank every company they do business with uses, before deciding if it's safe to do business with the company. Do residents of a state have a right to demand that? Would that be a victimless crime?

[UWDude]

Typical liberal. Can't shut the fuck up even when they huff out of a room.

What the fuck you talking about? Did I say I was done arguing? I just said I counted myself out of your stupid banking scheme.

And what room? Can you read, here, let me help you:


If that's your utopia, count me out.

err... derrr... librul librul librul.

I just said count me out of your utopia. Get it? Need more help understanding?

[UWDude]

This is an interesting impasse. Let's try this. Does anyone think it would be out of line for a law to be passed that states that anyone providing a refund to a customer be required to make payment in full, and cover all fees on their checks? That would cover the cable refund scenario mentioned earlier, which no one has addressed. This would make it unnecessary for people to find out which bank every company they do business with uses, before deciding if it's safe to do business with the company. Do residents of a state have a right to demand that? Would that be a victimless crime?

Oh I doubt it. See, before you open an account with Comcast, you have to check which banks they issue refund checks with. That's the free market way.

Yes, we are going to grease the wheels of this economy by requiring every person to do hundreds of hours of research before buying a burrito!

[phill4paul]

What the fuck you talking about? Did I say I was done arguing? I just said I counted myself out of your stupid banking scheme.

MY banking scheme? Lol. I'm not the one calling for more laws, rules and regulations. Just because somethings got your panties in a knot you want more regulation. You probably jizzed a handful when they passed the Overdraft protection law because you couldn't balance your bank account.

[UWDude]

You probably jizzed a handful when they passed the Overdraft protection law because you couldn't balance your bank account.

Yeah... you probably librul librul librul librul assumptions assumptions assumptions assumptions! Yeah! I showed you!

[acptulsa]

Well now.

Think I'll exercise my free market right to find another thread to participate in.

[phill4paul]

Oh I doubt it. See, before you open an account with Comcast, you have to check which banks they issue refund checks with. That's the free market way.

Yes, we are going to grease the wheels of this economy by requiring every person to do hundreds of hours of research before buying a burrito!

Lazy liberal whinetards. :rolleyes:

[UWDude]

Overdraft protection law

BTW, if that was the law that made it illegal for banks to overdraft the lowest amount checks first, as opposed to chronological order, then yeah. That was a damn fine law, because that shit was SHADY and CROOKED.

[phill4paul]

Yeah... you probably librul librul librul librul assumptions assumptions assumptions assumptions! Yeah! I showed you!

Must have struck a chord.

[UWDude]

Must have struck a chord.

Oh yeah!? Well assumption assumption assumptions!!

[phill4paul]

Oh yeah!? Well assumption assumption assumptions!!

Cry some more, libtard.

http://zquill.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/crying-child.jpg

[UWDude]

Cry some more, libtard.

http://zquill.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/crying-child.jpg

Wow, 11,697 posts. Now I see how.

[phill4paul]

Wow, 11,697 posts. Now I see how.

Look at the green bars, libtard. And weep..................

http://cdn.memegenerator.net/instances/400x/32955987.jpg

[UWDude]

Look at the green bars, libtard. And weep..................

http://cdn.memegenerator.net/instances/400x/32955987.jpg

Omg! Yes... yess... you are... gonna... OH my god.. yess... you are about to win a flame war... Oh my god yess! yes!! yes!! yes!!

Ohh... you are the big winner!


((ooh, and such a big, big fat green bar too! Be careful with that thing, please!?)

[phill4paul]

Omg! Yes... yess... you are... gonna... OH my god.. yess... you are about to win a flame war... Oh my god yess! yes!! yes!! yes!!

Ohh... you are the big winner!

Filled that hand up? Sure sounds like it.

[UWDude]

Filled that hand up? Sure sounds like it.

Oh, your big green bar filled up more than my hand, big boy! You are such a man!

[phill4paul]

Oh, your big green bar filled up more than my hand, big boy! You are such a man!

Quit flirting. I don't go that way.

[UWDude]

Quit flirting. I don't go that way.

Then why tell me to look at your big green bar? What a tease! What's wrogn with a little troll-on-troll action, hmm? I know you've done it before!

[gwax23]

"You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to malkusm again."

[phill4paul]

Then why tell me to look at your big green bar? What a tease! What's wrogn with a little troll-on-troll action, hmm? I know you've done it before!

You're weird.

[UWDude]

You're weird.

Hey, I'm not the one posting my baby pics on an internet thread about banking.

[MelissaWV]

Oh I doubt it. See, before you open an account with Comcast, you have to check which banks they issue refund checks with. That's the free market way.

Yes, we are going to grease the wheels of this economy by requiring every person to do hundreds of hours of research before buying a burrito!

Or you could just cash it somewhere, which costs all of $3 in most states now, and have cash in hand. Or you could deposit it into your own bank account, or onto one of those bank cards that isn't affiliated with an account. Or you could have a friend or family member deposit it and give you the cash. Or you could pay the fee described in the OP and consider it part of the cost of doing business.

OR you could DEMAND that there be a law that costs Comcast more money and then complain when the cost of service goes up lol

[phill4paul]

Hey, I'm not the one posting my baby pics on an internet thread about banking.

I'm not the one crying. MelissaWV should have spelled it out for you.

[UWDude]

Or you could just cash it somewhere, which costs all of $3 in most states now,

$3 is $3. And that is $3 too much to get what is rightfully your money.


OR you could DEMAND that there be a law that costs Comcast more money and then complain when the cost of service goes up lol

Comcast? Are you confused? Figure your shit out before typing, please.

[UWDude]

I'm not the one crying.

Who is crying? Your babies you posted pics of?

[phill4paul]

$3 is $3. And that is $3 too much to get what is rightfully your money.

Way to ignore the rest of her options. Take it up with COMCAST you whiny libtard.

[UWDude]

Way to ignore the rest of her options. Take it up with COMCAST you whiny libtard.

Way to ignore what I wrote about the comcast situation.
Yeah... I know, "get a lawyer for it!"
Nice solution, guys!

[MelissaWV]

$3 is $3. And that is $3 too much to get what is rightfully your money.


Comcast? Are you confused? Figure your shit out before typing, please.

Yes, ultimately requiring Comcast to issue you a refund in a variety of options is going to cost Comcast money, a cost that they will pass along to their customers. You might read back before your argument and see that the "option" being discussed was Comcast assuming the cost of cashing the refund check. That is costing Comcast money. Figure your shit out before typing, please.

You are paying $3 to cash a check. There are numerous other options that cost no money, but cost time. How much is your time worth per hour? You could also avoid this all by having a bank account, one of those rechargable cards, or any of the other options I mentioned. Hell, a lot of places will give you your rebate or refund via a card now.

Of course, there is the other option, which is not to overpay or enter into contracts with a deposit (which you know you're going to get back via check --- no hours of research required!).

[phill4paul]

Way to ignore what I wrote about the comcast situation.
Yeah... I know, "get a lawyer for it!"
Nice solution, guys!

Find your own damned solution that doesn't involve everyone else. Or suck it up and move on.

[UWDude]

Yes, ultimately requiring Comcast to issue you a refund in a variety of options is going to cost Comcast money,

I never said they should.

I'll go ahead and let you waste a bunch of time writing something out, so I can ignore it and argue with you about things you wrote but I did not bother reading.

Then we can increase our post counts, and rest assured the other is stupid.


Of course, there is the other option, which is not to overpay or enter into contracts with a deposit (which you know you're going to get back via check --- no hours of research required!).

Wow. See how that works. Wanna re-read the scenario? It wasn't even a deposit. God damn some of you people are complete narcissistic blow hards. Why even bother using a forum if you are not going to read what the other people write?

How about just write in a journal instead, and save us all some time from your incessant one-way babble?

[phill4paul]

I never said they should.

I'll go ahead and let you waste a bunch of time writing something out, so I can ignore it and argue with you about things you wrote but I did not bother reading.

Then we can increase our post counts, and rest assured the other is stupid.


Wow. See how that works. Wanna re-read the scenario? It wasn't even a deposit. God damn some of you people are complete narcissistic blow hards. Why even bother using a forum if you are not going to read what the other people write?

How about just write in a journal instead, and save us all some time from your incessant one-way babble?


http://ts1.mm.bing.net/th?id=H.4812000596986628&pid=15.1

[phill4paul]

Well intentioned try MelissaWV. You should know by now libtards don't listen to any advise.

[MelissaWV]

I never said they should.

I'll go ahead and let you waste a bunch of time writing something out, so I can ignore it and argue with you about things you wrote but I did not bother reading.

Then we can increase our post counts, and rest assured the other is stupid.


Wow. See how that works. Wanna re-read the scenario? It wasn't even a deposit. God damn some of you people are complete narcissistic blow hards. Why even bother using a forum if you are not going to read what the other people write?

How about just write in a journal instead, and save us all some time from your incessant one-way babble?

So it was a refund owed to you, but for neither a deposit nor an overpayment, and their refund policy was absolutely a secret to you.

Well, curse them for being such frauds, then.

I did try to search back to find your original scenario, for what it's worth, but unfortunately the last several pages' worth of posts by you were neener neener neener and variations on the theme. If you said something concrete and useful, it's been buried by your own posts.

I'm sorry for you, that you have no way of cashing a check, and no way of avoiding people paying you with checks.

[UWDude]

So it was a refund owed to you, but for neither a deposit nor an overpayment, and their refund policy was absolutely a secret to you.

Well, curse them for being such frauds, then.

I did try to search back to find your original scenario, for what it's worth, but unfortunately the last several pages' worth of posts by you were neener neener neener and variations on the theme. If you said something concrete and useful, it's been buried by your own posts.

I'm sorry for you, that you have no way of cashing a check, and no way of avoiding people paying you with checks.

Huh? Oh sorry, too busy. Didn't read, thoroughly. I wanted to respond, but this board has too many posts, so I guess I'll just write something anyway. What were we talking about anyways? Oh yeah, banks. Well, I am convinced you are wrong, and I need to write out something to prove my point, and make it look like I still have something of value worth reading. Of course by now, considering who I am talking to, I know your brain has already glossed over and you are thinking not about what you are reading, but what a good response that would make you the big winner would be, because after all, this is all about being the big winner. Far be it from em to offer you advice on what to say, but I would wager that if perhaps you would tell the writer of this post that since you are not reading his posts, and he is not reading yours, we both are wasting each others time, and therefore, we could probably stop and go do something more productive with our day.

But that would be too concillatory, no? Lets amp up the trollage a bit, and I advise you tell UWDude that HE is wasting YOUR time! Yes, tell him HE is wasting your time, because although you do not have time to read the arguments you are supposedly countering (magic, perhaps?) That YOUR time is much more important than his, and therefore, for every minute of your time he wastes, is equal to ten minutes of your precious time. And since it took you about two minutes to glaze over all this non-sense, UWDude has just mathematically wasted about 18 minutes of your time!

So in conclusion, I'd say your best flaming troll narcissistic move would be to accuse UWDude of wasting your time. If you really want to be cliche about it, tell him you've added him to your ignore list too. That always seems to really cheese-off those nasty time-wasters who bother writing their opinions on forums, which you have to waste time reading to even make a response. If you put UWDude on ignore, you see, (be sure to announce it, as if you have just attained the moral upper hand, because when writing a response, it always has to be in on the track to certain victory over the stupid), yes, on ignore, you no longer can read UWDudes posts, but you still can write responses to them like you have been this entire thread! See how that works!? Wonderful!

[MelissaWV]

Congratulations. You won the internet.

[UWDude]

Congratulations. You won the internet.

You just wasted 18 seconds of my time. Welcome to my ignore list.

[phill4paul]

Congratulations. You won the internet.

See UWdude that's why it is a waste of time. I know. You know it. You're a libtard. There is no changing that. I saw that straight off. Which is why I didn't waste my time trying to educate you about alternatives beside government legislation.
MelissaWV, bless her heart, believes in seeing the best in someone and trying to help them out.
So a typical libtard response would be to shit on her honest attempt to help you.
Fucking crybaby libtard whiners.

[UWDude]

her honest attempt to help you.


No she didn't. She didn't even read what I wrote before responding to it, and even admitted to it. Just like the moderator that stuck his nose in here without reading the situation of the OP before spouting his opinions on the situation.

And you, you throw around the word liberal all the fucking time. I guess that makes you a conservative then or something?

[nobody's_hero]

One thing you do, nobody's hero, is to not keep your money at bailed out banks.

I don't. I left suntrust after the 2008 debacle and started doing business with a credit union. But it isn't the depositors that keep a bank in business. With the "lender of last first resort" keeping these big banks afloat, they don't even really need depositors anymore. They need borrowers, and if there's one thing the Fed and the Big Banks excel at, it's cheap credit.

Mom-and-pop banks can't offer the rates that Chase can because they actually have to rely on depositors, and to do that they have to offer even remotely-fair interest incentives. So it costs them much more to do business than the guys who have Ben Bernanke on speed-dial.

[phill4paul]

No she didn't. She didn't even read what I wrote before responding to it, and even admitted to it. Just like the moderator that stuck his nose in here without reading the situation of the OP before spouting his opinions on the situation.

And you, you throw around the word liberal all the fucking time. I guess that makes you a conservative then or something?

fucking liberals...

http://cdn.memegenerator.net/instances/400x/32959450.jpg

[UWDude]

fucking liberals...



Fucking conservatives....

[phill4paul]

Fucking conservatives....

Gee, your on the right site. Too bad you are not here to learn anything. Anything else you want to cry about besides a refund check? While you have our attention, that is.

[UWDude]

Gee, your on the right site. Too bad you are not here to learn anything. Anything else you want to cry about besides a refund check? While you have our attention, that is.

Oh, this is a conservative site! To the gay bashing and creationist threads I go! See ya!

[UWDude]

Dammit, where are all the war loving conservative threads! I really want to get in on some muslim bashing! Are you sure this is a conservative forum?

[phill4paul]

Oh, this is a conservative site! To the gay bashing and creationist threads I go! See ya!

Lol. You're such a libtard. By all means go to those threads. Before you go just fucking admit that many in this thread have told you how to go about handling your money without further need of government regulation.
You won't, of course. You are a libtard that believes there needs to be a law and the subsequent adjustment in fees for 'doing business' that others will have to pay. But, it will make YOU feel better.


Wahhhh, my batch didn't work out. There should be a law!

http://ts3.mm.bing.net/th?id=H.5056216685674570&pid=15.1

[phill4paul]

Dammit, where are all the war loving conservative threads! I really want to get in on some muslim bashing! Are you sure this is a conservative forum?

You are a libtard. lol.

[UWDude]

Lol. You're such a libtard. By all means go to those threads. Before you go just fucking admit that many in this thread have told you how to go about handling your money without further need of government regulation.
You won't, of course. You are a libtard that believes there needs to be a law and the subsequent adjustment in fees for 'doing business' that others will have to pay. But, it will make YOU feel better.



What huh? Where are the threads about abstinence education here? Oh yeah, and where are all the threads about prayer in school? This is a conservative forum, right? Where are the threads about black people being drains on society? Oh yeah, and the ones about kicking out all the Mexicans until they learn to speak English? Where are the threads about needing to increase defense spending and invading Iran?

[osan]

I received a check from somebody for CHASE bank. I go to CHASE bank to cash the check. They tell me there's a 6 dollar service fee to cash the check. I argue with them (respectfully) then am told I have to open an account. How is this legal when the check is an order from the account holder to pay me the said amount? I see the JP Morgan family is continuing its legacy in ripping the American people off... Yes I have a bank account elsewhere, but I don't want the risk of a bounced/returned check. Looks like I have no choice though.

As far as I know, it is not legal. Years ago a friend needed $35K for a down payment on a house. I gave it to her. A few months later she gave me a check for $10K. I went to her bank to cash it. The teller literally blanched and tried to pull the same "you have to open and account" line on me. I told her that that would not be happening. She argued with me for about 5 minutes and I piecemeal demolished her bullshit in front of everyone in the area (small bank in Freehold NJ). Exasperated, she called the manager who tried the same tactic. I asked whether the account on which the funds were to be drawn had the cash on tap. They said yes. I them alerted them that this was a cash transaction and that they had no authority to withhold the funds. They finally gave in, but only after about 10 to 15 minutes of giving me shit about it.

A month or so later I came back with the check for the remaining $25K. They didn't utter a peep to me.

You have to know how to stand for your rights or some people will stomp all over you. If you do not know how, learn. That's what we're here for.... partly. :)

[UWDude]

You are a libtard. lol.

OH, I get it! This is that troll game where we call eachother names and tell eachother what the other is doing! Here, let me play:

You are a ***** brontosaurus, and right now you are pooping on your tail and flinging it at the triceratops trying to eat your bumbusha plant.

[phill4paul]

What huh? Where are the threads about abstinence education here? Oh yeah, and where are all the threads about prayer in school? This is a conservative forum, right? Where are the threads about black people being drains on society? Oh yeah, and the ones about kicking out all the Mexicans until they learn to speak English? Where are the threads about needing to increase defense spending and invading Iran?

There are many definitions of "conservative" ya liberal jackass. Fiscal conservative being one of them. Legislative conservative another.

How many people that follow Ron Paul want MORE laws and regulation?

STFU already with your attempts to redirect from a failed attempt to convince members of this forum that we NEED more federal laws to save you $3 fucking dollars in charges.

Quit whining. Grow a pair. Take charge of your OWN life.

[UWDude]

Oops, forgot the irrelevant troll picture:

http://cdn0.hark.com/images/000/001/921/1921/original.jpg

[UWDude]

There are many definitions of "conservative" ya liberal jackass.

Oh really!?
How many definitions of "liberal" are there.... "jackass"?



Quit whining. Grow a pair. Take charge of your OWN life.

(LoL, you are such a dumb fuck! I wonder, are you the cheeto eating fat-ass DnD geek trying to tell me to be a man, or the skinny bespectacled 90lb WoW dork who bases his masculinity on the powers of his level 70 Orc Bloodclaw Raider?)

[phill4paul]

OH, I get it! This is that troll game where we call eachother names and tell eachother what the other is doing! Here, let me play:

You are a ***** brontosaurus, and right now you are pooping on your tail and flinging it at the triceratops trying to eat your bumbusha plant.

Here ya go dipshit. Read this one again.........


As far as I know, it is not legal. Years ago a friend needed $35K for a down payment on a house. I gave it to her. A few months later she gave me a check for $10K. I went to her bank to cash it. The teller literally blanched and tried to pull the same "you have to open and account" line on me. I told her that that would not be happening. She argued with me for about 5 minutes and I piecemeal demolished her bullshit in front of everyone in the area (small bank in Freehold NJ). Exasperated, she called the manager who tried the same tactic. I asked whether the account on which the funds were to be drawn had the cash on tap. They said yes. I them alerted them that this was a cash transaction and that they had no authority to withhold the funds. They finally gave in, but only after about 10 to 15 minutes of giving me shit about it.

A month or so later I came back with the check for the remaining $25K. They didn't utter a peep to me.

You have to know how to stand for your rights or some people will stomp all over you. If you do not know how, learn. That's what we're here for.... partly. :)

You might learn how to be a man instead of a castrated participant of the system you and yours would create.

[UWDude]

You might learn how to be a man instead of a castrated participant of the system you and yours would create.

Yeah, OK, your new man-crush says it is not legal.

This bothers you right?
Since it is not legal to charge people to get their own money out of your bank.
And it empowers MEN like Osan to get his money without having to pay money to get what is rightfully his.

You find that to be "tyranny" right?
You think IT SHOULD BE LEGAL.
Right?
I mean, that has been the point this whole thread, huh?

In fact, in your little freemarketopia, Osan would have been DENIED, and possibly even had the cops called on him for harassment and trespassing for refusing to leave private property or pay $6 to get his own money.

You fucking stupid stomping fascist neocon!
(and now for the obligatory troll pic)
http://pibillwarner.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/auschwitz20barracks.png?w=640&h=448

[idiom]

Just sayin, here I click the person that needs money on my phone, they get it instantly. And back the other way. Nobody pays any fees. Everyone gets their money right away.

I only use cash or a nameless credit card when I need to not leave a paper trail. I also sometimes carry fives for hobos.

There's no reason banks should be holding your money hostage, or charging you fees. There is definitely no reason for retailers to be paying fees for electronic transactions.

It doesn't happen here and its not because of laws. Banks compete to see who can get you your money the most rapidly. we now have immediate interbank transactions so you don't even have to wait overnight between banks any more.

Cash is okay when you and friends can make change to split a bill. Or you could just zap each other the exact amount.

[UWDude]

So, here is an intersting quandry:

Should someone who has received a check from a bank be allowed to go to the bank to cash it?
After all, the bank owns that property, and therefore, has the right to determine who can and cannot walk into it's place of business, right?

And especially why should a bank be required to let a non-customer demanding money in their doors?

So, if someone walks up with a $10000 check, and demands the bank payment. Should the bank not have the right to simply call the police and have the person thrown off their property? Banks have the right to refuse service to anyone in freemarketopia land, right?

[phill4paul]

Yeah, OK, your new man-crush says it is not legal.

This bothers you right?
Since it is not legal to charge people to get their own money out of your bank.
And it empowers MEN like Osan to get his money without having to pay money to get what is rightfully his.

You find that to be "tyranny" right?
You think IT SHOULD BE LEGAL.
Right?
I mean, that has been the point this whole thread, huh?

In fact, in your little freemarketopia, Osan would have been DENIED, and possibly even had the cops called on him for harassment and trespassing for refusing to leave private property or pay $6 to get his own money.

You fucking stupid stomping fascist neocon!
(and now for the obligatory troll pic)
http://pibillwarner.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/auschwitz20barracks.png?w=640&h=448

Done with you. You had the chance to argue your ignorant case. I'm tired of you. In this thread.

[UWDude]

Done with you. You had the chance to argue your ignorant case. I'm tired of you. In this thread.

Aww. I suffered through all your stupid troll pics, insults and posts for dozens of posts. Two measly troll pictures in return, and you fold like a house of magic the gathering cards? Come on... ...BE A MAN (lol). Keep trolling for truth and phreedom phill4paul!

I was [] this close to being convinced by your insults and baby pics! Really, I was!
(and now for obligatory troll pic)
http://cdn.memegenerator.net/instances/400x/24194138.jpg

Come on Phill! I've just been flinging your own shit back at you! Don't you love the smell!

[osan]

why would it be illegal?

Because you have no contractual agreement with them to pay such a fee. If I take that check and deposit it into my own account or even cash it at my bank I am charged no such fees. If anyone is to pay such a fee it is the account holder upon which the check is drawn. The check is a cash-equivalent. Charging one to cash a check in the manner under question is like charging a premium for a cash transaction. Would you pay extra to use cash at the super market?

A bank has NO authority to withhold cash based on a refusal to accept such a service fee. Were the account holder to accompany you to their branch, withdraw cash and give it to you on the spot, would the bank hold the authority to charge a fee? If the account holder came to your home and gave you the cash in your living room or on a random street corner, would the bank be authorized to charge? No. Not under any circumstance.

[UWDude]

I also sometimes carry fives for hobos.


I had this angrily explained to me once, after referring to a hobo as a bum.

Hobos don't beg. They work for short periods of time, then they live on the streets or wherever off that money, and tend to travel from place to place looking for work. Hobos are quite proud of their semi-work ethic, and even have some kind of big hobo festival somewhere in Arizona I think it is.

Bums beg for money.

Just sayin'.

[heavenlyboy34]

lolz@this thread :D

[idiom]

I had this angrily explained to me once, after referring to a hobo as a bum.

Hobos don't beg. They work for short periods of time, then they live on the streets or wherever off that money, and tend to travel from place to place looking for work. Hobos are quite proud of their semi-work ethic, and even have some kind of big hobo festival somewhere in Arizona I think it is.

Bums beg for money.

Just sayin'.

I would use the term Vagabond for a migrant worker like that.

[cjm]

When you quote a job, you can state that the amount quoted is for cash, and that "checks drawn on the following banks need to add the following service charges." And then list them out, "Chase: $6.00, BofA: $8.00, etc." Put this requirement on the invoice too. The guy writing the check for $356 may not care and simply write one for $362 instead. The guy writing one for $20 would probably just pay cash.

[UWDude]

When you quote a job, you can state that the amount quoted is for cash, and that "checks drawn on the following banks need to add the following service charges." And then list them out, "Chase: $6.00, BofA: $8.00, etc." Put this requirement on the invoice too. The guy writing the check for $356 may not care and simply write one for $362 instead. The guy writing one for $20 would probably just pay cash.

Can you quote that to Comcast or Centurylink for a refund check? Would they pay an extra $6?

BTW, my Comcast story was just a hypothetical. Comcast has been one of the best companies I dealt with. Qwest/Centurylink, however, has been shady and terrible. Either way, I've never tried to cash any of their checks, I just deposited them in my account.

I just brought up the scenario to paint a situation, (one of many) where you aren't just taking a check for something you sold in your store, like people keep seeming to imagine is the only time a check is cut.

And I know some of you dumbfucks are going to call me a liar and shit, but it was just a hypothetical. Course, calling it a scenario, and saying comcast gave me a check from bank of freemarketopia should have been a clue, but then again, some of you people don't read too well. In fact, I am sure I'll have to re-mention the bank of Freemaketopia line again, because they saw me say that the comcast story did not really happen, and will start tip-tap-typing out their pithy and venomous replies like they always do before finishing to read something.

[cjm]

Can you quote that to Comcast or Centurylink for a refund check? Would they pay an extra $6?

BTW, my Comcast story was just a hypothetical. Comcast has been one of the best companies I dealt with. Qwest/Centurylink, however, has been shady and terrible. Either way, I've never tried to cash any of their checks, I just deposited them in my account.

I just brought up the scenario to paint a situation, (one of many) where you aren't just taking a check for something you sold in your store, like people keep seeming to imagine is the only time a check is cut.

And I know some of you dumbfucks are going to call me a liar and shit, but it was just a hypothetical.

See posts 96 (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?400272-How-is-it-legal-for-a-bank-to-charge-a-fee-to-cash-a-check&p=4806673&viewfull=1#post4806673) and 122 (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?400272-How-is-it-legal-for-a-bank-to-charge-a-fee-to-cash-a-check&p=4806981&viewfull=1#post4806981).

[UWDude]

See posts 96 (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?400272-How-is-it-legal-for-a-bank-to-charge-a-fee-to-cash-a-check&p=4806673&viewfull=1#post4806673) and 122 (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?400272-How-is-it-legal-for-a-bank-to-charge-a-fee-to-cash-a-check&p=4806981&viewfull=1#post4806981).

Uhh... yeah, I already saw those. Neither answer the question.
YOu offer a solution in a narrow band of scenarios where you can imagine yourself getting a check. However, checks don't just come from customers. They often come from other entities that don't really have any kind of flexibility to do things such as add on a service fee. Try telling the customer service rep on the phone for Qwest that you want them to pay an extra $6 for the check cashing fee.

[gwax23]

Why are you on this forum. Your clearly not a libertarian and you clearly have no interest in hearing our views or trying to learn anything so if your just going to blast your unsupported nonsense statist views you have plenty of other forums on the internet for that.

[UWDude]

Why are you on this forum. Your clearly not a libertarian and you clearly have no interest in hearing our views or trying to learn anything so if your just going to blast your unsupported nonsense statist views you have plenty of other forums on the internet for that.

Just because I am pro-union and anti-$6-charge-for-taking-out-your-own-money-from-a-bank does not mean I am not a libertarian.
I just find other Libertarians who try and act like a world with no government would be some kind of utopia to be incredibly grating. especially when they forget that the government does have roles, and one of those is ENFORCEMENT OF CONTRACTS.

I wonder how much work you did for Ron Paul and the Libertarian movement? Hmm? I was doing activist work for the libertarian party FIFTEEN YEARS before you joined this forum, so how about you piss off, n00b. Look up Tim Eyman, I did petitioning for him in the late 1990's for TWO of his initiatives, as well as tons of message/outreach work at fairs, conventions etc for the Libertarian party back when almost everybody thought the idea of legalizing marijuana was crazy and impossible.

And what's this shit about not wanting to hear "our" views? At least I am reading people's posts, unlike some of the annoying twits here who are posting without even reading the thread or my posts first. Which is fucking annoying and disrespectful, so of course I am not going to pay any kind of respect to trolls like that, since that is exactly what people who never read the posts of others are: trolls.

this forum, like every other forum, is full of trolls who use classic troll tricks to be classic troll dicks, and I simply am not going to try and have respectful conversations with people who obviously are not interested in such discourse. As soon as I see that troll skin under that prim and proper facade, I drop the pretense of civility and just go at it. Only way to beat a troll is to flame it to death.

[Warrior_of_Freedom]

My God, this never ends. I went to my bank Sunday, not the usual branch I go to, but my bank nevertheless. They wouldn't cash my check because they thought it was suspicious I wanted to cash a few hundred dollars on a Sunday.

Think I'm just going to turn to online banking, seriously.

[Anti Federalist]

My God, this never ends. I went to my bank Sunday, not the usual branch I go to, but my bank nevertheless. They wouldn't cash my check because they thought it was suspicious I wanted to cash a few hundred dollars on a Sunday.

Think I'm just going to turn to online banking, seriously.

Terrorist.

See Something Say Something.

You are reported.

[Warrior_of_Freedom]

Terrorist.

See Something Say Something.

You are reported.
yeah oh well, but who isn't?
I guess being on RPF is a second flag, automatic DNF list

[oyarde]

My God, this never ends. I went to my bank Sunday, not the usual branch I go to, but my bank nevertheless. They wouldn't cash my check because they thought it was suspicious I wanted to cash a few hundred dollars on a Sunday.

Think I'm just going to turn to online banking, seriously. ;) What were you going to do with all that on a Sunday? You should have told them 90 % was for your church , you were 8 weeks behind on your tithes because you had been taking care of your sick Grand Mother, the other 10 % was needed for your Cub Scout Troop , they would have cashed it.

[Warrior_of_Freedom]

;) What were you going to do with all that on a Sunday? You should have told them 90 % was for your church , you were 8 weeks behind on your tithes because you had been taking care of your sick Grand Mother, the other 10 % was needed for your Cub Scout Troop , they would have cashed it.
Please, a few hundred dollars is one trip to the grocery store for a family nowadays.

[oyarde]

Please, a few hundred dollars is one trip to the grocery store for a family nowadays. No doubt , I am glad all of mine are grown , I remember having three teenagers @ home all of the time and five on the weekends , holidays , and the friends @ one point , I was probably doing one meal a day on weekdays, two a day on weekends and spending close to what the Mrs was on the house payment.Our house payment was not large , but, both ( groceries , housing )were the most significant costs we had .

[Tpoints]

No they told me later I couldn't even cash it, because it has to clear. Shouldn't they know if the funds are available or not?

aren't you glad they're not ripping you off $6 with your advance consent?

Don't bother opening an account with them, they are NOT any better are "not risking bouncing returned check" than your own bank.

"Cashing a check" means risking the check bouncing and letting you walk away with cash, why would anybody do that?

[Tpoints]

The whole reason I want to check the cash at this bank is because the last time they wrote me a check it was returned, and no one can answer why. A second check went through fine, and they paid me back the return fee, but I'd rather not deal with this hassle. It's almost as if banks don't want to do business anymore. I remember a time banks paid you to bank with them. Now they give you 0.05% interest and try to charge you fees out the ass.

Hell, I can even cash the check at walmart for only $3.

this means you shouldn't trust the person sending you the check, DEMAND A MONEY ORDER. Take $1 off from their cost, it'll save you ALL the trouble. Money orders and cashier's checks are risk free, good as cash. Why didn't you learn your lesson and stop taking checks form them? How is using a different bank going to help you?

[LibertyEagle]

Why are you on this forum. Your clearly not a libertarian and you clearly have no interest in hearing our views or trying to learn anything so if your just going to blast your unsupported nonsense statist views you have plenty of other forums on the internet for that.


1. Who were you directing this to?
2. What made you incorrectly think that this was a libertarian forum? It's not limited to libertarians at all.
3. How about you not call people idiotic names and instead use the opportunity to explain to whomever why you believe he is incorrect?

[KingRobbStark]

1. Who were you directing this to?
2. What made you incorrectly think that this was a libertarian forum? It's not limited to libertarians at all.
3. How about you not call people idiotic names and instead use the opportunity to explain to whomever why you believe he is incorrect?


People usually tend to resort to the classic "fuck off" retort when they have nothing constructive to say.

[Tpoints]

Please, a few hundred dollars is one trip to the grocery store for a family nowadays.

Not unless I was going to stock up for 2 months.

[Warrior_of_Freedom]

aren't you glad they're not ripping you off $6 with your advance consent?

Don't bother opening an account with them, they are NOT any better are "not risking bouncing returned check" than your own bank.

"Cashing a check" means risking the check bouncing and letting you walk away with cash, why would anybody do that?
The issuing bank already knows the available balance. If the balance wasn't available then they would know before giving me any money.

[Warrior_of_Freedom]

Not unless I was going to stock up for 2 months.
Where the fuck are you shopping where a few hundred dollars pays for 2 months of food for a family?

[Tpoints]

The issuing bank already knows the available balance. If the balance wasn't available then they would know before giving me any money.

That's your assumption, just because they are the issuing bank doesn't mean they either know it or are obligated to know and share it. I know this sounds very hard to believe, that in today's technology world banks can't know by the second how much money is available in an account, but that's how checks have worked for a long time. If you don't like it, don't deal with it, demand a money order or cashier's check.

[Tpoints]

Where the fuck are you shopping where a few hundred dollars pays for 2 months of food for a family?

Short answer : within my means.
Long answer : Costco, Asian owned markets, Mexican owned markets, wholesale places. A few hundred can mean 200 or 900, but I have never had to pay $200 for a month of food supply for my family. Oh, go ahead and tell me my family is eating poison and preservatives. Sorry, my family doesn't get sick, doesn't smoke, and very rarely drinks alcohol.

Where not : farmer's markets, organic food stores.

[BAllen]

Short answer : within my means.
Long answer : Costco, Asian owned markets, Mexican owned markets, wholesale places. A few hundred can mean 200 or 900, but I have never had to pay $200 for a month of food supply for my family. Oh, go ahead and tell me my family is eating poison and preservatives. Sorry, my family doesn't get sick, doesn't smoke, and very rarely drinks alcohol.

Where not : farmer's markets, organic food stores.

Dollar stores are good for groceries. Store brands:1 loaf of bread for a buck. 2 litre sodas are about a buck. A 6-roll pack of b'room tissue for a buck. Pants for about 10 bucks. Why pay for premium products? They chose cheap wages for factory work. Make them pay for it. They want a spiral to the bottom, give it to them. Boycott name brands. See how they like their shit sandwich when their profits are reduced, or they go out of business. Shop thrift stores as well for clothes.

[Tpoints]

Dollar stores are good for groceries. Store brands:1 loaf of bread for a buck. 2 litre sodas are about a buck. A 6-roll pack of b'room tissue for a buck. Pants for about 10 bucks. Why pay for premium products? They chose cheap wages for factory work. Make them pay for it. They want a spiral to the bottom, give it to them. Boycott name brands. See how they like their shit sandwich when their profits are reduced, or they go out of business. Shop thrift stores as well for clothes.

I am not against name brands, I am against overpaying for quality I can't see or taste, or can't afford.